62 Cited authorities

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 28,078 times 138 Legal Analyses
Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env't
523 U.S. 83 (1998) Cited 10,834 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court "act ultra vires" when it assumes "hypothetical jurisdiction" in order to rule on the merits
Davis v. U.S.
564 U.S. 229 (2011) Cited 2,255 times 47 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[police] searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule"
Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. Cuno
547 U.S. 332 (2006) Cited 2,692 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that an injury a plaintiff "suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally" is not a cognizable injury-in-fact
Warth v. Seldin
422 U.S. 490 (1975) Cited 11,935 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"
United States v. Salerno
481 U.S. 739 (1987) Cited 5,462 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that "extensive safeguards" are necessary "to repel a facial challenge"
Allen v. Wright
468 U.S. 737 (1984) Cited 4,781 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that, even when plaintiffs allege "one of the most serious injuries recognized in our legal system," it's not justiciable where "the chain of causation between the challenged Government conduct and the asserted injury are far too weak for the chain as a whole to sustain respondents' standing"
Wash. State Grange v. Wa. State Repub. Party
552 U.S. 442 (2008) Cited 1,260 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts should neither "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it" nor "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied"
City of Boerne v. Flores
521 U.S. 507 (1997) Cited 1,803 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that RFRA is unconstitutional in so far as it permits suits against state actors
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.
429 U.S. 252 (1977) Cited 4,313 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs need show only that "a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision," because, after all, "[r]arely can it be said that a legislature or administrative body operating under a broad mandate made a decision motivated solely by a single concern, or even that a particular purpose was the ‘dominant’ or ‘primary’ one."
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 330,074 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1973 - Transferred
42 U.S.C. § 1973 Cited 1,593 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that no change in voting takes effect until precleared
Section 1973c - Transferred
42 U.S.C. § 1973c Cited 894 times 1 Legal Analyses
Setting forth the requirements of § 5
Section 1973b - Transferred
42 U.S.C. § 1973b Cited 256 times
Specifying jurisdictions where § 5 applies
Section 1973a - Transferred
42 U.S.C. § 1973a Cited 80 times
Providing that the court need not authorize the appointment of observers if any incidents of denial or abridgement were few in number, corrected promptly and effectively, lack a continuing effect, and lack a reasonable probability of recurrence
Section 51.54 - Discriminatory purpose and effect
28 C.F.R. § 51.54 Cited 18 times
Providing that the last "legally enforceable" plan is the benchmark plan for purposes of measuring retrogression
Section 51.59 - Redistricting plans
28 C.F.R. § 51.59 Cited 2 times
Providing that “ jurisdiction's failure to adopt the maximum possible number of majority-minority districts may not be the sole basis for determining that a jurisdiction was motivated by a discriminatory purpose”

Laroque et al v. Holder

62 Cited authorities

Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

Holding that a court "act ultra vires" when it assumes "hypothetical jurisdiction" in order to rule on the merits

Holding that "[police] searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule"

Holding that an injury a plaintiff "suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally" is not a cognizable injury-in-fact

Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"

Holding that "extensive safeguards" are necessary "to repel a facial challenge"

Holding that courts should neither "anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it" nor "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied"

Holding that RFRA is unconstitutional in so far as it permits suits against state actors

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Holding that no change in voting takes effect until precleared

Setting forth the requirements of § 5

Specifying jurisdictions where § 5 applies

Providing that the court need not authorize the appointment of observers if any incidents of denial or abridgement were few in number, corrected promptly and effectively, lack a continuing effect, and lack a reasonable probability of recurrence

Providing that the last "legally enforceable" plan is the benchmark plan for purposes of measuring retrogression

Providing that “ jurisdiction's failure to adopt the maximum possible number of majority-minority districts may not be the sole basis for determining that a jurisdiction was motivated by a discriminatory purpose”